Audrey
Have you ever wondered why there are big debate on co-ed classes vs. single sex classes? Or what classroom environments are actually better? In these three sources, you will be introduced to the topic of co-ed classes, along with single sex classes and what makes them special. You will learn about WHY people do or do not want to separate classes, along with the statistics that go along with it. Who knows- maybe you'll change your mind on the whole subject. So take a seat, read below, and start learning!Source 1
In the article “Are co-ed or single sex lessons best?” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/dec/02/co-eds-or-single-sex) informs both sides on the topic of single sex and co-ed classes for teachers to see. Dr. Anthony Seldon and Dr. Chris Nicholls state arguing viewpoints to inform students, teachers, and heads of the school boards about co-ed and single sex classes. This article is organized by comparing and contrasting the two ideas. With this, compare and contrast lets you see the statistics and facts of both articles with technically both viewpoints in this article. The conflicting evidence in this article is very obvious. Because this article is split up into two different viewpoints, it states the pros and cons in co-ed and single sex classes; both viewpoints coming from doctors. Connotation is used in this article in the “single sex classes are better,” section by using words such as ‘teachers are more capable,’ and ‘very comfortable with our classes.’ However, the “co-ed classes are better,” part of this article uses much more slanted language in the text, using words such as ‘depressingly,’ ‘misleading,’ and ‘dangerous,’ giving this article much slant. This source is mediocre on reliability. The positive things about this source are it is a .co.uk site, gives doctor opinions on the topic, and gives other people’s opinions on the topic. However, the negative thing about this source are there are quite a few ads, other topics at the top of the page such as ‘apps,’ and ‘media,’ and was last updated December of 2009.
Source 2
In the article “Single-Sex vs. Co-ed: The Evidence” (http://www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html) NASSPE tries to persuade to parents and teachers that single sex classrooms are more productive than co-ed classes. The main idea in this article is to get persuade and mutually inform schools that single sex classes are much more productive than co-ed classes. This article is organized by comparing and contrasting, along with some cause and effect. Comparing and contrasting comes into play when you see the statistics being compared to each other, such as ‘boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient. Boys in single sex classes: 86% scored proficient.’ Cause and effect show in this article is when the author is showing boys in co-ed classes switching to single-sex classes. Causing the boys to switch into single-sex classes is effecting how they learn. The viewpoint in this article is favoring single-sex classes. In the article you can see that the article itself is slanting towards single-sex classes by only giving positive statistics on single-sex classes and only negative statistics on co-ed classes. There is no conflicting evidence since this is a persuasive article. They are never giving any negative statistics or opinions on single sex classes and not any positive statistics or opinions on co-ed classes. The author uses connotation in this article to create bias and slant by using words/phrases such as ‘effectiveness,’ and ‘creates opportunities that don't exist in the co-ed classrooms.’ The strategy NASSPE used to persuade us was logos. Giving statistics on the co-ed and single-sex classes makes us look at how these classes are really effective in action. There are both positive and negative things on this website. Positive characteristics are going onto the homepage; you can see that this organization wrote a book with much research going into this topic. This website is also dedicated to this topic with minimum to little ads. This organization is also an .org site, giving it more credibility. The negatives things about this website are that it only gives positive opinions on single-sex classes. I would find this website in the long run pretty reliable.
Source 3
In the article ‘Louisiana School Board to Halt Single-Sex Classes after ACLU Intervention’ (http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/louisiana-school-board-halt-single-sex-classes-after-aclu-intervention) ACLU tries to persuade teachers that co-ed classes should not be tampered with. The main idea in this article is to inform people that co-ed classes are better than single-sex classes. The viewpoint in this article is that co-ed classes are better and more effective than single-sex classes, and that they also don’t take up to stereotypes. This article is organized by problem and solution. An example of this is when they say ‘…that boys and girls learn so differently that they need to be educated separately.’ Evidence that explains the author’s viewpoint is ‘…and that boys who like to read, avoid sports and have close female friends should be forced to spend time with “normal” boys,’ and ‘in fact, harmed students by making these stereotypes more acceptable.’ There really isn’t any conflicting evidence since this is a persuasive piece. Connotation is used in this piece by saying ‘stereotypes,’ and ‘unlawful sex segregation.’ Because of this, there is a huge slant favoring co-ed classes. The way the author tries to persuade us into believing this is by using logos and ethos. Logos is used by giving statistics ethos is used by giving quotes from doctors. This website’s reliability is pretty good, because it was recently updated, is a well known organization, is an .org organization, and has minimum ads. The negative things about this website are at the top, there is a 'donate' button, along with different topics to choose from so this website is not a dedicated website to only co-ed- single sex classes. All in all though, this website is decent in credibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment